the archaeology of ancient egypt Egyptologists, art historians, philologists, and anthropological archaeologists have long worked side by side in Egypt, but they often fail to understand one another s approaches. This book aims to introduce students to the archaeological side of the study of ancient Egypt and to bridge the gap between disciplines by explaining how archaeologists tackle a variety of problems. introduces the theoretical reasoning for each approach, as well as the methods and techniques applied to support it. This book is essential reading for any student considering further study of ancient Egypt. is professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois. He is the author (with Emily Teeter) of Egypt and the Egyptians, aswellasofnumerousother books and articles on Egypt, covering topics from domestication to cultural change and the environment. He has more than thirty years of fieldwork experience in Egypt; currently he is researching the cultures and environment of Egypt s deserts.
The archaeology of ancient egypt Beyond Pharaohs douglas j. brewer University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City Cambridge University Press 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa Information on this title: /9780521707343 C Cambridge University Press 2012 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2012 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Brewer, Douglas J. The archaeology of ancient Egypt : beyond pharaohs /. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-521-88091-6 (hardback) isbn 978-0-521-70734-3 (pbk.) 1.Egypt Antiquities. 2. Archaeology Egypt Methodology. 3.Egyptology. I.Title. dt60.b745 2012 932 dc23 2012012069 isbn 978-0-521-88091-6 Hardback isbn 978-0-521-70734-3 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
TO MY WIFE ANN, AND THE BREWER AND PÉREZ FAMILIES, THANK YOU
contents List of Illustrations List of Tables Preface page ix xiii xv 1 introduction: history and development of archaeology...1 Archaeology and Egyptology 1 Development of a Discipline 2 Archaeological Theories or Paradigms 5 Culture History 5 Processualism 6 Post-Processualism 7 Archaeological Terms 9 Archaeology in Egypt 11 2 the first egyptians: the art and science of dating...13 Relative Dating Techniques 14 Absolute Dating Methods 16 Dating the Paleolithic Period: Stone Tool Typologies 18 Lower Paleolithic Typologies 20 Middle Paleolithic Typologies 24 Upper Paleolithic Typologies 28 3 agriculture and the nile valley: biology, the environment, and sampling...36 Egypt and the Early Neolithic 38 Egypt s Agricultural Origins 43 Archaeology and Sampling 45 Sampling in Practice 48 vii
viii * Contents 4 a cultural transformation: explaining or describing the past...54 Culture in Transition 54 Pottery and Egypt s Formative Period 56 Pottery and Culture 65 Archaeology,PredynasticEgypt,andSocialComplexity 77 5 unification and the king: the limits of archaeology...79 Excavation 82 Rectifying the Error: The Main Deposit 84 Addressing the Archaeological Question 97 6 the first great cycle: hypotheses and models...101 Archaeological Questions, Theories, and Hypotheses 102 Giza 108 Kom el-hisn 112 Elephantine 115 Model Building 118 Evaluating the Model: Predicting Settlement Patterns 120 7 stability and provincialism: archaeology and the environment...124 Geoarchaeology, Archaeobotany, and Zooarchaeology 127 Egyptians and Their Environment 132 The First Intermediate Period 133 TheCulturalEvidence 134 The Environmental Evidence 139 Correlation or Causation 140 8 the desert frontiers: archaeology of the other...143 Nomads and Archaeology 150 9 from artifacts to culture: back to basics...159 TheTempleasMonument 161 Akhetaten and the Aten Temple 164 What Is in a Name? 169 Reconsidering an Accepted Label 172 Reconstructing Akhetaten 177 10 archaeology in perspective...181 References 183 Index 193
list of illustrations 2.1 Stratigraphic sequence showing overlaying units at an excavation of an Early Dynastic Delta site. page 15 2.2 Predynastic and Early Dynastic vessels illustrating the evolution of wavy-handle decoration through time. 17 2.3 An Acheulian hand axe a core tool (a) and a Mousterian core (b) from which flakes were created to make the smaller, more refined tools of the Levallois technique. 19 2.4 A simple pebble tool of the type associated with Homo habilis. 21 2.5 At times in the geologic past, today s desert offered savannalike conditions and was inhabited by numerous cultures. 22 2.6 The approximate site location of the Paleolithic cultures discussed in the text. 23 2.7 Acheulean tools were made by chipping flakes off a stone, the remaining stone core becoming the tool (see Fig. 2.3a).In the later Levallois technique, the stone core provided the raw material and the flakes became the tool with many tools made from one stone (see Fig. 2.3b). Because the core was specially prepared for flaking, each flake could be made thin and symmetrical, which meant more and different types of tools could be made from a single stone than by using the previous Acheulean technique. 25 2.8 Classic tanged Aterian point. 26 2.9 Aterian technology: The dart, a stone point affixed to a light shaft, is propelled with greater force when aided by a specially designed throwing stick. 27 2.10 The burin, thought to be an engraving type tool that could be re-sharpened with a skillfully placed blow directed behind the point (arrow). 29 2.11 Kubbaniyans moved seasonally between the border area of the Nile s fertile black soil and desert to the desert swales (small dunes). 31 ix
x * List of Illustrations 2.12 Qadan burials as they were unearthed by archaeologists during the UNESCO-sponsored Nubian Monuments campaign. 33 2.13 Epi-paleolithic backed microblades. 34 3.1 The connective stem or rachis (right) for wheat grains. 39 3.2 The easterly path of domestication as defined by the earliest known C-14 date forthe respectivesite. 41 3.3 The graph represents sampling to redundancy: as the curve levels, continued sampling adds only types already collected. 49 3.4 Ancient Fayum lake shoreline where Epi-paleolitc tools have been recovered. 50 3.5 The Fayum region as defined by the Fayum Archaeological Project showing sites (a), transects and collection units (b). 51 4.1 (a) and (b) Examples of classic Naqada Period artifacts. 57 4.2 Petrie s ceramic sequence dating system and their associated sequence date. He purposely left space at the beginning and endofhischronology(0 30 and 80 100)forfuture discoveries. 60 4.3 Unimodal or battleship curves reflect the lifespan of a type where after its introduction it increases in popularity and then declines as it is replaced by another type. 61 4.4 The hallmark rippled pottery of the Badarian culture. The ripple effect is made by dragging a serrated catfish spine or comb across the unfired clay vessel, then smoothing the marks with well-watered hands and firing the pot. 65 4.5 Typical Badarian artifacts for procuring and producing food, adorning their bodies, and expressing their creativity and craftsmanship. 67 4.6 The approximate extent of the Badari and Naqada I and II cultural regions. 68 4.7 Naqada I redware (a) and the hallmark Naqada ceramic, (b) black-topped redware. 68 4.8 (a) Example of a Naqada I pot-mark and an abbreviated list of pot-marks (b) recorded on early Naqada vessels. 69 4.9 Naqada I white cross-lined pottery with geometric designs (a) and (b) dancing (?) human figures. 70 4.10 Interesting artifacts of the Naqada I period are animal relief pots. Figures are molded on the side of the vessel. 71 4.11 Naqada II pottery: pink ware with geometric (a) and (b) scenic designs. 72 4.12 Clay female figurine positioned in a pose very similar to those found on Naqada II pottery. 73
List of Illustrations * xi 4.13 The sites of Ma adi, Buto, and Heliopolis, core cultural areas of the Ma adi-buto culture of the Delta. 74 4.14 Ma adian pottery vessels. 75 4.15 Clay cone temple reconstruction, showing use of cones in decorative motif along a column. 76 4.16 The wall mural from the famous Lost Tomb (Tomb 100)of Hierakonpolis. 77 5.1 Part of the artifact cache from the Main Deposit as recorded by the excavators. 83 5.2 An excavation horizontal plan (a) and excavation profile (b) from the Delta site of Kom el-hisn. 85 5.3 An example of Ranke s chronological placement of palettes based on style and internal arrangement. 87 5.4 (a) and (b) The Narmer Palette. 88 5.5 Serekhs in chronological order (top to bottom). 89 5.6 Artist s reproduction of the ivory label of Narmer, showing his triumph over a northern (Delta?) enemy. 90 5.7 The Scorpion Macehead. 91 5.8 An early Naqada Period cylinder seal. 92 5.9 Impression on a cylinder seal listing the first five kings of Egypt. 92 5.10 Example of a well-preserved Dynasty 1 ivory from the reign of Djet. 93 5.11 Tomb U-j where a cache of tags and labels was found. 93 5.12 Location of Delta sites mentioned in this discussion. 97 6.1 Modern villages, like ancient ones, are often situated atop delta geziras. The distant village rising above the lowlands is situated on an ancient gezira. 108 6.2 Location of the three settlements, Giza, Kom el-hisn, and Elephantine, discussed in the text. 109 6.3 Atypicalcarinatedbowl(a)andabreadmold(b)recovered from Giza excavations. 110 6.4 Horizontal plan of the Gallery Excavations (left) and a close-up plan of one gallery (right). 111 6.5 The archaeologists topographic map of the Kom el-hisn study area. 113 6.6 Horizontal excavation plan of the central area of the Kom el-hisn excavations. 115 6.7 Horizontal plan of Elephantine. 119 6.8 SPOT Satellite image of delta showing Predynastic sites. 121 6.9 Map of sites identified by SPOT Satellite and corroborated by archaeological survey. 122
xii * List of Illustrations 7.1 Natural motifs in day-to-day Egyptian objects: (a) hieroglyphs, (b) papyrus columns, (c) temple pylon entrance. 125 7.2 The Nile inundation (ca. AD 1900) before the construction of the Aswan Dam. 126 7.3 Archaeologically recovered pollen sample of a typical arid environment with Artemisia (upper left), grass (upper right), and a composite. 128 7.4 Faunal remains embedded in ancient lakeshore mud. 129 7.5 Schematic diagram of a Nile perch vertebra showing growth rings. 131 7.6 Examples of First Intermediate Period coffins: (a) Dynasty 11, (b) LateDynasty 11 or Early Dynasty 12. 137 8.1 A Byzantine/Early Arab period Bedouin campsite. 147 8.2 An example of Egypt s vast desert regions. 151 8.3 Distribution of calcareous fluvisols (or Jc soils) in Egypt. When located in desert environs, these soils would have offered pasturage after periodic rains. 154 8.4 Example of rock art from the Eastern Desert showing more than one time period represented. 158 9.1 A typical temple plan of the New Kingdom. 161 9.2 Location of Tell el-amarna. 164 9.3 An example of a boundary Stele at Tell el-amarna. 165 9.4 Map of the city of Akhetaten. 166 9.5 Diagram of the Aten Temple showing main features presented in the text. 168 9.6 A diagramed temple (the Aten Temple?) found in a nearby Amarna period tomb. 170 9.7 An Egyptian bakery. 173 9.8 Graphic representation of animal use from three house sites at Amarna. 175 9.9 Example of reporting fauna from three theoretical house structures. 176 9.10 House-size distribution at Amarna. 179
list of tables 2.1 Nile evolution and geologic time. page 14 2.2 Upper, Middle, Lower Paleolithic industries of Egypt. 19 4.1 Petrie s SD dates and the derivation of the Predynastic Sequence. 62 7.1 Levels of measurement and associated assumptions. 130 9.1 Abbreviated list of some named features from Amarna. 171 9.2 Numerical values for a hypothetical faunal assemblage recovered from three house structures. 176 xiii
preface My original vision for this book was that it would be a review of archaeology s contribution to the study of ancient Egypt. The content was to be a simple enumeration of those sites and artifacts that in some profound way influenced our understanding of Egyptian culture. In my discussions with Egyptologists over the various sites to include, it became clear to me that there was a deep frustration with archaeologists, in particular those of us with an anthropological background. As one close friend and colleague said to me, It is almost as if you archaeologists speak a different language. Obviously, we as archaeologists have done a poor job in explaining our position and goals to our Egyptology colleagues, even when they have worked literally side by side with us in a mosquito-infested excavation pit. I for one have asked many questions of my Egyptology friends, and they have patiently answered them, and by extending that courtesy have allowed me to have a deeper appreciation and understanding of ancient Egypt. It struck me that perhaps I have not returned the favor. How could my Egyptologyoriented friends be expected to teach archaeology, its methods, and goals to their students, without some support from me (us)? I certainly could not teach subjects in Egyptology without strong support and guidance from them. I thus changed the focus of the book away from sites and lists of artifacts to the discipline of archaeology and the method, theory, and techniques commonly applied to retrieve and interpret those artifacts the idea being that a good Egyptologist, professional or student, will already know the sites and what was found there (or could easily look it up), but might need help in understanding the reasoning behind a particular archaeological question or approach to the data. This difference revolves around the distinctive paradigms followed by the respective fields; that is, whereas the Egyptologist is looking for historical facts, the archaeologist is trying to view a process through time, which requires a different approach one often not realized by those following a history-bound paradigm (and vice versa). To use an analogy, if a child has misbehaved, one approach would be to look at what that misstep was xv
xvi * Preface and how it might be corrected. A different approach might be to look at the long-term path that led to the misbehavior to try and understand why it came to be in the first place. Although the child is the subject of both inquiries, very different approaches and types of data are required to answer the respective questions. Both approaches are certainly valid, and both may solve the immediate problem, but the paths taken are different. So in this text, my goal is to try and explain to students how the archaeological approach (particularly anthropological archaeology) differs from the more historical, Egyptological approach. Thus, the chapters introduce some of the theoretical reasoning for a given approach, as well as the methods and techniques applied to support that approach. Although a number of topics might seem rudimentary to some of my Egyptology colleagues, to others they may not. I am reminded of a statement made by a reviewer of an earlier work of mine, who questioned the need for a chapter on the Nile Valley s environment when discussing Egyptian culture, something this reviewer clearly felt was superfluous. To me, an archaeologist, this was an incredible statement. How could I discuss a culture and its evolution without knowledge of the environment within which it had evolved? The greatest difficulty in completing this work was to find a series of sites that through a natural progression in time and subject matter would adequately tell the archaeological story. In some instances, this was easy, and in others, it was something of a stretch, but my hope is that the message, the manner in which we as archaeologists approach a problem, has transcended my choice of sites as well as their place in time. For seasoned Egyptologists who are reading this text for some enlightenment, I do hope you find something here of interest, but the book was not written specifically for you. I envision the audience to be undergraduate students who have already taken an introductory Egyptology course and now need to think about what direction they might want to pursue next: philology,arthistory,orarchaeology,which,ofcourse,arenotnecessarilymutually exclusive. My hope is that this text might serve as that next step: introducing the student to the archaeological side of the study of ancient Egypt. Ultimately, it would be nice to see this work as part of a trilogy, with an introductory art history and philology text bundled together to assist the interested neophyte at the beginning of his or her scholarly journey. As is traditional of such books, I have refrained as much as possible from incorporating citations within the text in the hope of making it an easier read for the intended audience. The references on which I have so heavily depended are listed at the end of the text. Although a seemingly simple book,
Preface * xvii I am surprised at how long it took me to write it. Throughout the course of this endeavor, there have been many to whom I owe thanks. Beatrice Rehl deserves special thanks for her numerous pep talks and for keeping me focused on the project, especially after I tossed the third completed draft in the trash, vowing never to return to it. Thanks go, too, to Robert Wenke for the innumerable discussions we have had on archaeology throughout the many years of our partnership, which more often than not occurred while we were sitting in a dusty, hot, and miserably uncomfortable vehicle riding to or from our excavation site. Emily Teeter, Donald Redford, Ron Leprohon, Edwin Brock, and a host of other Egyptologists deserve thanks for their frank discussion of archaeology and archaeologists. Finally, a thank you to the National Geographic Society, the Bioanthropology Foundation, and the University of Illinois Research Board, for funding many seasons of fieldwork, with a special thanks to the university for honoring me with a Beckman Award, which allowed me the opportunity to study the Bedouin and to record the ancient rock art in the Eastern Desert.